April 07, 2009

T. David Gordon on Moralistic vs. Christological Preaching

I have committed myself to Christological preaching, but one of the pushbacks on Christological preaching, at least as I practice it, is that it is not practical enough. The standard preaching advice for many has been that each sermon should include or conclude with practical applications of the text.

I agree with this in a sense, but "practical" often takes the form of a "to-do" list, a series of actions we must take to "apply" the text. The problem with this is that it seems to me to render the gospel null and void. Our response to the gospel is always that of repentance and faith, not action. We do not "do" something to apply the gospel, the gospel "does" something to us. Thus I have been very cautious in offering "to-do" lists from texts.

On the other hand I am aware that the Bible is full of commands that demand obedience. Yet, while acknowledging that, I am still left with the Colossians 2:20-23 conundrum.

20﻿ Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: ﻿21﻿ “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? ﻿22﻿ These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. ﻿23﻿ Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

In other words, telling people what to do and not do has little or no value in getting them to do or not do what they should or shouldn't do. This doesn't mean there aren't things we should and shouldn't do, but do's and don'ts won't get it done.

So how do we resolve this conundrum? T. David Gordon in his book Why Johnny Can't Preach offers some "practical" thoughts:

I know that there are those who are terribly afraid that such Christ-centered preaching will lead to licentiousness; but I categoricaly deny it. I've witnessed with my own eyes the difference between believers who suffer through moralistic preaching and those who experience Christological preaching. The former are never as strong or vibrant in their Christian discipleship as the latter. In theory, we all say we believe, for instance, that good works are the "inevitable" fruit of saving faith. I not only say this; I believe it.

I believe that as people's confidence in Christ goes they do, ordinarily and inevitably, bear fruit that accords with faith. Thus, there is no need for some trade-off here, or some alleged dichotomy suggesting that we need to preach morality if we are to have morality. No; preach Christ and you will have morality. Fill the sails of your hearers' souls with the wind of confidence in the Redeemer, and tey will trust him as their Sanctifier, and long to see his fruit in their lives. Fill their minds and imaginations with a vision of the loveliness and perfection of Christ in his person, and the flock will long to be like him. Impress upon their weak and wavering hearts the utter competence of the mediation of the One who ever lives to make intercession for them, and they will long to serve and comfort others, even as Christ has served and comforted them.

11 Comments

David,

I hesitate to come down on one side or the other. I have seen "Christ-centered" preaching that leads people into a cocoon from which they never emerge. I have seen "moralistic" preaching where the people are constantly converting, falling back, and converting again.

I'm not sure if we should ever make it one or the other. Elements of both are needed as the Spirit leads. Jesus says both "I am the bread of life" and "Stop sinning, lest something worse happen to you."

The kind of preaching we need is Holy Spirit directed. And that will look different from week to week as the wind blows where it will.

Appreciated this David. As a hearer I've sometimes felt a bit see-sawed by this tension. One week it's all of grace, the next it's a to-do list. Well not now, but was a time...
When it becomes about what not to do most of the time it will result in compliance. But compliance isn't the same as a changed heart.
BTW - was pleased to see the positive test results you've had very recently and have kept you in my thoughts.

I think that "application" often tends to take over a sermon that is at some level still Christological. When this happens, people often come away with the to-do list and and a certain short-lived eagerness to fulfill it, but do not retain the Christological understanding of where this all comes from. It becomes man-centered very, very quickly. So I guess you could say I mistrust the application portion of sermons a great deal. They often reveal more of the pastor's agenda or wish-list for his church than anything else. And I think it would be refreshing to hear a Christological sermon that was entirely without the obligatory "application." As the man said, "Just give me Jesus."

In my long and often terribly winding journey, I've done both and sat under both. I believe that "preach Christ and you will have morality" is fundamentally true, but I think (with DLE) that some caution is in order. If we dispense altogether with moralistic teaching we'll have to get rid of James' letter, much of Jesus' teaching, and more.

I think an either/or approach makes us strive to be more biblical than the Bible, which includes both Christological exposition (e.g., Romans 1-11) and practical application (e.g., Romans 12-16) side by side. It's a mistake to try to find a practical (if by that we mean moralistic) "application" of a primarily Christological passage. The proper application might be, "Trust in Christ and not in your own behavior." It might also be a mistake to find an exclusively Christological meaning in a primarily practical passage.

Dr. Gordon was one of my favorite professors, and he would be the last to suggest that there is no room for moral correction in the Christian walk; he's merely against the idea that moral correction in itself will empower the hearer to actually correct his morals; rather, it's done through the power of Christ. I would also suspect that he would interpret the Colossians passage (one of my favorites) in New Perspective terms: that is, Paul is talking about "works of the law," primarily understood as referring to issues that separate Jew from Gentile (here, dietary laws and laws dealing with ceremonial uncleanness--"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!") and also to traditional "hedges" around the Law ("based on human commands and teachings"). I don't think it applies to biblical commands and precepts, especially those found in the New Testament.

Our pastor seems to be pretty Christological in his approach, and it has been a good thing for me and for our church. When he's preaching out of the OT, he very frequently shows us how people and events foreshadow Christ. Right now he's in Proverbs, and we're hearing a lot about how Jesus is the solution to our various problems (wisdom is also prominent).

Much of the time, the main thing I need out of a sermon (and get) is encouragement: "Your situation is not hopeless." Jesus is the the biggest source of that encouragement.

I suspect that moralistic preaching tends to have the perspective that the gospel is Christianity 101, and that we should, sooner or later, move on from it. I have recently become convinced that we are never to move on from the gospel.

This is a timely post for me as I have been going through a transition of sorts from American Evangelicalism to Classical Reformed Theology. I have been exposed to 'practical' preaching that essentially gives you a to-do list that is added to the to-do list from last week. I long for Christ-centered preaching, but alas I have few options.

I guess the idea behind the double sided issue is how to best analyse scripture and whether the scripture visited has substance in light of the issues addressed here. Possibly we may be seeing misuse whereby there is no substance to assert for either the christological or the moralistic view yet one wants so much to use the verse to drive home their view point.Wise yet knowledgable interpretation is required. However I guess the issue raised for the christological way is well brought out and makes alot of sense and would make the difference between a burnt out child and a fired up one !! Thank you for this insight.

In the Colossians passage, Paul is talking about the "basic principles of this world" not the moral teaching of Jesus. I take that to mean a false morality, such as picky rules about silly things, among other things.

People are different and will be edified by different things. I love practical examples, which can help me see general commands in a different light.

One solution is, at the end, to encourage people to take your words and the text and seek God for the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and to avoid condemnation from the flesh or legalism.

A quality preacher is one who holds the proper tension --- he preaches BOTH the indicatives and the imperatives. The NT uses indicative statements when discussing the certainties of what God has done, is doing or will do for us. Imperative statements (on the other hand) are commands declaring from God what we should do. What God commands us to do (the imperative) as Christians is always based upon what He has done, is doing or will do for us in Christ (the indicatives). For example, the first three chapters of Ephesians are indicatives, declaring the foundational grace we have in Christ, while the following chapters, which say “therefore …” (live this way), are imperatives. Selecting a preacher who understands this should be a number one priority because this is the clearest indicator of whether he is preaching thr whole counsel of Scripture, avoiding both legalism and antinomianism. What God has done for us in regeneration & justification results in preaching faith and obedience, because it is God working in us that makes this a reality.

I have been involved in a church which had a lot of people coming out of legalistic backgrounds so for fear of being moralistic basically preached only the indicatives which, in my estimation, resulted in a message that we are saved from the guilt of sin but not its power. The gospel itself is not only justification but regeneration and sanctification. We we only proclaim forgiveness of sin and give no indication that God has given us a new heart then I believe we have not preached the whole gospel.

Implicit in the notion that scripture needs to be made "practical" is the view that scripture is not practical and the task of the preacher is to build a bridge from the scripture to the contemporary listener. Scripture is not relevant but needs to be made relevant. God does promise that his Word will not return void. It transcends time and culture. I am not referring to imperatives, the Bible teaches imperatives which should be preached. I am referring to moralisms and drawn from personal experience, or stories intended to make the scriptures relevant to a modern audience.